brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:GA and CA Differences
I have been hearing from a few people that GAs and CAs aren't that different. I would like to discuss why this is and what reasons people have. Please put your opinion under whichever category you fall. 01:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Too Similar * Ok, I don't know if I'm missing something, but the two requirements sections are (from their respective pages): Complete articles must... #...comply with the manual of style completely. #...have their infoboxes filled out as best as possible. #...have a small lead section that describes the basic infos of the subject like release year, theme, rough overview of the content. #'...have a paragraph that decribes the subject in greater detail (only if necessary; small sets that contain just small simple models may not need such a section).' #...have an external links section (sets only)/appearances section (minifigures only)/a complete set list (themes only). For an article to be eligible to become a Good Article, it must... #...comply with the manual of style completely. #...have its infobox(es) filled out as best as possible. #...have a lead section that describes the basic infos of the subject like release year, theme, rough overview of the content. #'...have at least one long original paragraph that describes the subject in extensive detail, as well as at least one additional original paragraph that contains further information about a different aspect or peculiarities of the subject.' #...have an external links section (sets only)/appearances section (minifigures only)/a complete set list (themes only). :(differences in bold). So, basically, it comes down to possibly having an extra paragraph. 04:18, July 27, 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with you but I don't see how we can make them less similar without lowering CA quality. Anyways, you're missing the fact that GAs should have images from catalogs or things like that while CAs don't need them. 12:29, July 27, 2010 (UTC) : I'm not missing any fact. This is the whole set criteria, pasted directly from BP:GA and BP:CA. There's nothing about images on there. 02:34, July 28, 2010 (UTC) ::There isn't but it's expected. My earlier GAs did not pass and they had no images. One of them passed when samdo added images. I see a connection here. . 12:32, July 28, 2010 (UTC) Not too Similar * I find that there are a few major differences. You don't need a lot of pictures for CAs and for GAs you need longer paragraphs of description. More changes to the MOS are however narrowing the differences. The reason (as many of you already know) is that the changes apply to both. In addition, the only real difference between GAs and FAs is that FAs are expected to have a few more pictures longer paragraphs. That's really the only difference. There is no problem, but if you want FAs to be drastically better than GAs and GAs drastically better than CAs you would have to slacken the MOS requirements for GAs and CAs (more for CAs than GAs) to create a gulf. 01:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Per Boba. If we want FA to be a lot better than CA and GA, we need to make either it harder to obtain or the others easier to obtain. Also, I put this on the talk page, but only Boba has replied, so I'll put it here: We have featured article candidates, good article nominations, and complete article proposals. I think that having the complete one different is fine, but I think the other two should be the same. 05:04, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Agreed. 12:16, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Not Similar Enough